castledoom.com

[JuntaJoe]

This subject was one of my big efforts over at LS.

It's gone. Get over it. Move on. I have.

The last time it was really dissertations on my part and responses from others.

This time I want to do it different.

Members should try to make posts one of two types:

Proposal or response.

The latter is just what it sounds like. Respond to a proposal.

The former is to define what you think a 21st century US military should look like. Sure there are other militaries, but the US is big, rich, and potent. So we'll work with the military with the most lattitude and scope. Now you don't have to limit yourself the the current military situation. The research and procurement system works in windows of decades. So you can envision a military in year 2040. Just don't get sci-fi on us. Make your proposals sensible based on the current military and short horizon scientific achievements. Lasers on satellites are plausible. Laser pistols are not.

And let's not bite off more than we can chew.

Let's tackle this piecemeal.

Have proposals be from one of these umbrella subjects:

Army

Navy

Airforce

Marines

Coast Guard/Border Patrol/Homeland Security assets

Space Protection/NASA efforts/satellites

Special Forces

Mercenary forces/Private security companies

National Guard/Ready Reserve

Espionage/Intelligence

Overall US organization of the services

Now don't just make a quick comment on one of those groups. Tackle the entire subject. Let us know how you would organize it. Include force levels, training, locations, and equipment. Really grab one of those topics and become the master of it.

Keep responses about pointing out gaps in the writer's theory. Help them refine it. If you dislike the entire proposal don't pick it apart. Submit your own full proposal instead. Duplicate proposals on a single subject is a good idea. Just don't toss out a tweaked clone either. If your idea is so close then help the writer refine his or live with your rebuttal.

[Che]

Quote: So you can envision a military in year 2040. Just don't get sci-fi on us.

The Sci-Fi of today may not be so... in 2040 :wink:

Joe, I know you are familiar with what passes for the "combat" helmet in Sci-Fi. I can easily seeing something not so different being used by mid-century. We already have most of the technology and the "brains" are working on integrating it.

In 35 years, we will also see major advances in armor... both vehicular and personal. Grunts will not wear flak-jackets... but flak-suits will be the fashion. I would not rule out some form of temperature/environment control.

Field rations - irradiated, self-heating, individual meal-paks. It will be a very wide and varied menu... reflecting all types of cuisine.

[JuntaJoe]

But the military will be slow to implement it.

The Joint Strike Fighter is a great example.

Envisioned in the late 80's, Boeing and Lockheed are still in trials.

Expect the first deliveries by 2010. About 25 years.

The stuff for 2040 will be arriving on draftsmen's tables this decade.


My advice is to suggest stuff that is officially in development or is based off current technology.

[Che]

Joe, everything that I referenced is in development and has been for awhile.

I have been looking for a Yahoo news article, from 4-6 weeks ago, that dealt with new combat helmets. The article stated that comm, infra-red vision and a range-finder had already been incorporated.

Armor... you don't think this has moved to being a top-priority?

Field-rations... there is a company, that manufactires MRE's, in San Antonio working on the next generation of rats. They are predicting that the new rats will be ready... in just a few years. The Japanese have already done something very similar... for the civilian market or tactics.

Making grunts more efficient... is not just about weapons-systems.

[JuntaJoe]

You beat me to the punch.

I remember reading about those developments and had planned to come back with an ammendment to my last post.

I was actually trying to make another point with my comment.

I was saying not to go too "Star Wars" on us.

Things that are in development should certainly be in your visions for the military.

Just be careful and realistic.

[JuntaJoe]

Semi-relevant to the topic:


More Military Bases in U.S. to Be Closed

February 20, 2005 12:50 PM EST

WASHINGTON - Safe for a decade, military bases in the United States face an uncertain future.

The Pentagon plans to shut down or scale back some of the 425 facilities, the first such effort to save money in 10 years. The downsizing is part of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's long-term transformation of the Cold War-era military.

The Pentagon chief argues that closing or consolidating stateside facilities could save $7 billion annually and that the money would be better spent improving fighting capabilities amid threats from terrorists.

"The department continues to maintain more military bases and facilities than are needed, consuming and diverting valuable personnel and resources," Rumsfeld recently told lawmakers.

Shrinking the domestic network of Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps bases is a certain source of savings. It also is a high-stakes political fight because it affects local economies in congressional districts.

Lawmakers have resisted efforts to shutter their bases, challenging past base closing rounds and lobbying hard to keep their installation off the final list.

"It's the perfect example of good policy and good politics not fitting in the same room together," said Christopher Hellman, an analyst with the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation in Washington.

"Conceptually, lawmakers buy the argument that base closures are important to make sure they are spending resources wisely. But they are reticent of closing bases in their cities because of job losses," Hellman said.

Rumsfeld has estimated that extra base capacity is at nearly 25 percent. But Republican lawmakers said the secretary recently told them that the cuts will not be as deep, in part because the military needs a home for 70,000 troops returning from Europe.

The Pentagon says that all domestic bases are under consideration, but clearly some are more vulnerable than others.

Topping the list are aging facilities, small bases used by only one of the four services and large installations whose missions, training, ammunition or weapons are outdated.

The Northeast is home to many bases configured to defend against the Soviet threat. They could absorb the biggest hit now that many former Soviet bloc nations are U.S. allies.

Congress authorized the fifth round of Base Realignment and Closure - commonly known as BRAC - last year. The first deadline in the yearlong process is March 15, when President Bush must name a nine-member commission that will review a list of closures that Rumsfeld will propose by May.

Congressional leaders have submitted their six recommendations. Bush will make his three choices known shortly.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., selected retired Gen. John G. Coburn, a former Army deputy chief of staff, and retired Navy Adm. Harold W. Gehman Jr., a former supreme allied commander of the Atlantic.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., offered former Rep. James V. Hansen, R-Utah, and former Transportation Secretary Samuel Skinner.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada picked former Democratic Rep. James Bilbray, D-Nev. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., recommended Phillip E. Coyle, a former Pentagon official and a defense researcher.

As the process gets under way, lawmakers and communities are stepping up efforts to show their bases are essential. They also are lobbying for new missions and projects for their facilities to make the bases less attractive for closure.

Congress authorized the closures last year, rejecting a delay until 2007. Still, some Republicans and Democrats continue to fight.

"I will try to stop it at any point and in any way I possibly can," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss. Closing bases while the country is at war is "the worst possible timing," Lott says.

He lobbied hard during previous rounds to keep open the Meridian Naval Air Station in Mississippi, which barely escaped closure. It could be targeted again this year.

Other lawmakers say the round will go forward.

"We had a debate. We voted. We had a majority say we're going forward. How could you possibly reverse it? It would be crazy," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said it was essential for the military to eliminate "those bases, structures, buildings, compounds that aren't on the very edge of what we need to defend ourselves."

The Pentagon estimates that previous closures in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995 eliminated 20 percent of domestic bases and saved about $16.7 billion through 2001, and roughly $7 billion annually since.

Congress has refused repeated requests by the Pentagon to close more bases since 1995. Part of the reason was lingering Republican distrust after President Clinton moved to ease the economic impact from two base closings in vote-rich California and Texas just before his re-election campaign in 1996.

In 2001, with Clinton out of office, the Pentagon nearly got its wish for closures in 2003. But after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress delayed the closures until this year.

Defense Department background on base closings: http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/

Copyright 2005 Associated Press.